Free Markets, Free People

Immaturity, historical ignorance and lack of critical thinking define today’s SJW

We’ve covered the SJWs and their protests on various of the universities and colleges in this country to some extent.  But while wandering through some links I came upon an Atlantic article that was very sympathetic to the SJW cause, especially that of racism – institutional racism – as it were.  And I found this quote below to be a fascinating look into the mind of an SJW without a clue:

During a protest at Princeton last semester, students confronted university President Christopher Eisgruber, explaining the emotional reasons behind their demand that the school remove Woodrow Wilson’s name from university buildings. A female protester was shown in a video saying:

I don’t think [racism] is just one or two evils. I don’t think it’s just a flaw, and I don’t think that you as a white person understand what it’s like to walk past a building or to be studying in a school or to have it on your diploma from a school that was built on the backs of and by your people. I don’t want to see that. I do not want to sit in Wilcox hall and enjoy my meal and look at Woodrow Wilson, who would not have wanted me here.

Here you see a very immature individual who has chosen to have an emotional response predicated on a negative feeling to a silly premise.   The premise?  Woodrow Wilson was a racist and wouldn’t want her there, therefore she’s uncomfortable and it is the worlds duty to assuage that uncomfortable feeling.

Really?  See, if I were her, I’d approach that in a completely different way.  I’d be grinning at the image of Wilson saying to myself, “see, you racist old goat, I’m here!  I was invited to be here! You wouldn’t have wanted me here but I am here!  Your kind no longer holds sway!  See how far we’ve come since your backward and retarded beliefs were predominant!  I’m going to sit here everyday and enjoy eating lunch in front of your image!”

But if she had approached it that way, she couldn’t have thrown the little pity party for herself, gotten herself labeled a “victim (with special status)” or found some lefty journalist with a platform to sympathetically, if not unthinkingly, perpetuate this nonsense.

And, as we’ve pointed out endlessly, giving credence and support to this sort of pre-teen emotionalism, especially in college, does nothing to prepare these tender young flowers for the harsh realities outside of University.

There’s also a problem of historical memory at work here.  None of those attending college today lived with or suffered the real institutional racism their grandparents suffered and overcame.  None of them realize that to that generation, both black and white, who fought for civil rights, the end of Jim Crow and equality for all people, their whining about a dead man’s beliefs – beliefs which don’t affect them in the least – seem exactly as I’ve characterized them … childish and immature.

Just as interestingly is their “solution”.  Voluntary segregation.  What their grandparents fought to dismantle, they want to reassemble.  They also want to restrict speech to that of which they approve, which is again something that their grandparents fought against.

One more bit of irony here is the fact that Woodrow Wilson was the progressive’s progressive.  He was a part of the party of Hillary Clinton … and Bull Conner.  But our friendly Journo nor the spoiled special snowflake seem to be aware of that (or are studiously ignoring it).

Funny, sad stuff, this …


Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

72 Responses to Immaturity, historical ignorance and lack of critical thinking define today’s SJW

  • “Voluntary segregation.”

    I have seen that thinking mentioned in several articles of the college turmoils over the last year (maybe longer, just sticks out to me more these days perhaps).
    Isn’t it true that only some people are allowed to ‘voluntarily’ segregate themselves and others trying to do it would be labeled racists?
    But then, some people think they can’t be a racist owing to their skin pigmentation.
    So in summary when non-whites want to ‘voluntarily’ exclude people who don’t look like them from a place, or a group, that’s hokey-fine, but not the other way around. Okay, got it.


    Ah, New America – still smells like the really crappy parts of old America doesn’t it?

  • I don’t want her there- or anywhere near me.

  • I don’t know what SJW means. I do know that most college campuses still want real discussion and resist efforts to try to stymie that. You cherry pick the exceptions to make it seem like they’re all over (they’re not), and to make it seem like all liberals support this (most don’t).

    • LOL

      troll level: FAIL

    • Yes, cherry picked schools, like Harvard, or Oberlin – we seek them out and hunt down instances of stupidity on campus so we can comment on it here.

    • Scott is ignorant (or feigns ignorance) of a ubiquitous phrase?

      This is Jack’s shocked face. -> :O

      • I never heard that phrase before, it’s hardly ubiquitous. Perhaps it’s a favorite of right wing blogs? I don’t read those. Even this one I rarely read, but do come here for the economic updates which are useful…sometimes I read an article and respond, but usually I resist – you guys have your reality and that’s OK. Whatever gets you through the night. The fact you think such a term is ubiquitous shows you live in a very peculiar reality.

        • Uh, no. According to the wikis it is in the dictionary and dates to at least 1991. Catch up man!

          In August 2015, the derogatory noun Social Justice Warrior was one of several new words and phrases added to Oxford Dictionaries.[2][9] Discussing the new addition, Abby Ohlheiser wrote in The Washington Post that the term “social-justice warrior” or variations thereof had been used as a positive phrase in the past, and provided an example dating to 1991. She quoted Katherine Martin, the head of U.S. dictionaries at Oxford University Press, who said, “All of the examples I’ve seen until quite recently are lionizing the person”.

        • Our own reality, yes.

          As opposed to whatever it is you get there at Whatsamatta U. up there in rural Northern Whitemanistan.

        • I never heard that phrase before, it’s hardly ubiquitous.

          Ubiquitous terms you never heard before? Inconceivable!

          As Alan Prendergast pointed out, if you didn’t know the meaning of the term, why did you post a comment?

          …right wing blogs? I don’t read those. Even this one I rarely read….

          Self-contradiction, within adjacent sentences….

          And, we’re supposed to believe that you not only just learned the term SJW and your knowledge of social media only goes so far as blogs (never mind the inane reference to the French Revolution)?

          There is only one reality. If you’re not hallucinating or suffering from some medical condition afflicting your ability to perceive, then your inability to grasp that reality goes to errors in thought.

          • Yes, I just learned the term SJW. I apparently do not follow the same debates and dialogues you do. I posted a comment because the meaning of the post was pretty clear. I just couldn’t figure out the acronym.

        • “I never heard that phrase before, it’s hardly ubiquitous.”

          The usual quote is;
          “I can’t believe Nixon won. I don’t know anyone who voted for him.”

          But, after doing minimal research (Got that, Erp? R-e-s-e-a-r-c-h) I found;
          “Pauline Kael famously commented, after the 1972 Presidential election, ‘I live in a rather special world. I only know one person who voted for Nixon. Where they are I don’t know. They’re outside my ken. But sometimes when I’m in a theater I can feel them.’”

    • Next time you could try telling us us you know what kind of cloth Hillary wiped her servers with.

    • But seriously Scotty, do give your opinion on the demands of above mentioned SJW (now you have goggled that new fangled interwebby thing). Is she right, wrong, precious, noble, misguided or just wishywashyflippyfloppy in an Erbish way?

      • I’m very much a believer in free speech, especially in academia. I also believe that judging historical figures by current standards is a bit idiotic. I am actually part of a group upset by any challenge to complete free speech, dedicated to protect it. You can’t expand your mind if you want to always keep it in a “safe place.” I think the problem is more in the elitist ivy league type schools for a variety of reasons.

        • Elitist Ivy League schools have these problems for a variety of reasons…

          Many of the students at those Ivy League schools grew up deprived, struggling to feed and clothe themselves, working 5 jobs at the age of 10 to get enough money for tuition, books and fees and having to make weighty choices such as deciding if they were going to go to the Hamptons for the Breakwater Fall Fleet Racing Invitational or Peisey-Vallandry for the opening of the ski season.

    • “I don’t know what SJW means.”

      Oh, and as a point of reference –
      The alternative to not believing you didn’t know what an SJW was is to realize you didn’t really understand the context of the post….

      But thought it would be a good idea to comment on it anyway.

      Is that what you want everyone to know?

      • Following Scott’s statements to their logical conclusion? That way lies madness…or hilarity!

    • “I don’t know what SJW means”

      Oh, c’mon now. Surely an expert researcher and scholar such as yourself knows how to use Google.

      You know, you really don’t have to *play* dumb, we already know.

      “…it seem like they’re all over (they’re not)”

      You may be right. Most schools can only dream of attaining the lofty intellectual levels of Yale, for example; “…It is not about creating an intellectual space…it’s about creating a home here.”, or Columbia; “Columbia Law School is allowing students to postpone their final exams this month if they feel unnerved by the recent grand jury decisions not to indict police officers in the deaths of unarmed black men.”

      Have you started giving “trigger warnings” yet? Lord knows your lectures probably induce something worth warning about.

      First quote source;
      Second quote source;

  • Looks like Punxsutawney Scott woke from his slumber a week early this year to yawn and blearily squint into the light. Tell us Punx, are we to have six more weeks of you trying to not make a choice between Hillary and Bernie before it becomes clear if Hills is going down in an flaming orange jumpsuit? Or is the sun already shining on a brand new socialist year and you’re feeling the Bern?

    By the way, SJW is a dating term… Single Jehovah’s Witness. You really should keep up with the internetz… or stop lying.

    • Interesting to note that I didn’t pick the example, the Atlantic did, and sympathetically too. But he missed that, of course.

    • Lol – I googled the term after I posted it. Articles like this make it seem the problem is far larger than it, and you guys make it seem like these people represent anyone on the so-called “left.” Most want vigorous debate, or, as I tell my students “disagreement is good.” If you just talk to people you agree with and dismiss those with a different view, you can’t learn. For a democracy, disagreement is essential, as well as listening and respecting those with a different view. And if you must know, I’m perfectly comfortable at this point as an O’Malley supporter. Though I did have a Sanders moment – this summer I took my kids to South Dakota and in the Portland airport sat down to an guy who looked just like Bernie Sanders. We exchanged a quick hello, nothing more. Then they called the flight to DC and the man headed to his plane. I later saw the headline in the Portland paper that the night before Sanders had a rally of 7000. So I’m convinced that guy was Sanders. I wouldn’t have said any more to him if I had known for sure. That would have been intrusive.

      • Ahhh, nothing like a fix of A-Grade pure Colombian Erb to get you through the day. Erb, for when the acid just doesn’t get you there.

        • Careful. I hear the side effects, like nausea and explosive flatulence, can be pretty disturbing.

      • ” I googled the term after I posted it”

        Jeez, you do keep up with the times, don’t you?

        “disagreement is good.”

        Unless, of course, it comes to AGW or similar leftist dogma. ”

        “I’m perfectly comfortable at this point as an O’Malley supporter.”

        BWAHAHAHAH! I’ll just bet you are. I have had to live under that clown’s administrations.

        • Actually global warming is scientific fact, accepted by both the left and right world wide due to science. Maybe 15 years ago there was room for doubt, but no longer. The evidence is overwhelming. I know that will never convince you – many of you have ideologically driven desires to not believe what people across the political spectrum globally believe because of the science. That’s fine – I won’t argue with you. I don’t think you’ll change your minds. I’ll focus on what will do good.

          • Actually, ‘global warming’ is complete bushwah, and all your blindly ideological insistence to the contrary isn’t going to change that.

          • Actually global warming is scientific fact, accepted by both the left and right world wide due to science. Maybe 15 years ago there was room for doubt, but no longer. The evidence is overwhelming.

            Upside down and backwards. 15 years ago, the rate of warming appeared alarming. The “hockey stick” had not yet been debunked and the many predictions of dire consequences in the coming years had yet to be tested. That was the pinnacle of the alarmists’ standing.

            15 years of a “pause” in warming means alarmists must increasingly adjust the data to “hide the decline”, hide the Medieval Warming Period, Roman Warm period, and utterly reverse the trend in some geographic regions (e.g., continental US, South America) to manufacture a warming trend which isn’t supported by raw data or satellite data. The many predictions by alarmists of dire consequence which were sure to pass by now did not hold true.

            The political opportunity to exploit the ignorance and fear of people has just about run its course. Another recession, terrorist attacks, wars driven by energy competition, and you’ll find that most people care far more about real-life problems than the Chicken Littles predicting doom and gloom or the less dramatic scientists who try to get us to worry that about relatively minor problems happening beyond the lifespan of our great grandchildren.

            There are benefits to warmer temperatures, like agriculture. Maybe in a century, Miami will need dikes. Or, maybe not.

            It’s certainly not “scientific fact” as you so pompously claim.

          • At least you’ve learned not to use the word “consensus” any more.

            You’re a good little doggie, if we keep whacking you on the nose with the rolled up discredited global warming prediction documents, perhaps by 2025 the ‘pause’ will have convinced you that Al Gore and the rest of your ‘scientists’ really were bilking you.

          • “many of you have ideologically driven desires to”

            Right. Which is why we study STEM (Google it) subjects rather than political science. Because WE are driven by ideology.

        • Now now, let’s give Erbie a little credit. He threw around ‘teabagger’ with cheerful abandon for something like two years before bothering to figure out what it meant. This is like Warp 9 for him.

          • I am pretty sure I avoided the phrase “teabagger” from the start.

          • Scott Erb, October 1, 2009:

            They are vastly overestimating the efficacy of such slash and burn tactics. Obama simply has to patiently ride this out, get things passed, and watch the Republican “rage” fizzle out. It’s not broad, and it’s really not deep. Get past the teabagger/political junkie crowd, and most people really would prefer the various sides work together, put ideology aside, and do some pragmatic problem solving. [Emphasis mine]

            Scott Erb, January 28, 2016:

            I am pretty sure I avoided the phrase “teabagger” from the start.

            Suck on it, you pompous fraud.

          • Gee, no need to get so nasty. I forgot what I wrote in 2009. I shouldn’t have used the term and I’m sorry I didn’t remember. It was six and a half years ago.

      • SJW are about supressing different views. You’re whole comment is absurd.

        If I was to take issue with this woman’s taking it back to slavery claim. For the fifty years slavery was allowed under British rule in NJ, I doubt any of that still exists or if there is a really a connection to modern day Princeton which is valid. Even so, the practice was common then so context matters. She rejects context in order to reject all of Princeton’s history. Same with her rejection of Wilson. Not that there’s much “Baby” with Wilson, for a Progressive there is. She wants to through out the baby with the bathwater.

        The same thing is happening to Hillary and SJW’s. They immediately switch to Sanders once they see some of Hillary’s treatment of women claiming to be assaulted by Hillary.

        Pretty soon, someone will demonstrate to SJW’s the history of the Democrats wrt to Slavery, Segregation, and Civil rights. They soon will reject the Democrat Party completely with their Hyper-Intolerance. The only question is that functioning as intended to move young Democrats to official Socialism or is it an unintended consequence. I guess it depends on who are the useful idiots.

        • … assaulted by Bill, rather. Although…

        • I am completely against suppressing views. I’m not on the side of the “SJWs” and believe efforts to ban free speech on campuses, demand trigger warnings, or worry about “micro-aggressions” are wrong. On this issue, I’m pretty much on the same side you are, except I think this isn’t common. I think removing a statue of Wilson is absurd. Historical figures reflected the beliefs of their times. Heck, lots of people left and right believed in eugenics in the 20s. Condemning past figures based on contemporary standards makes no sense.

  • All an employer needs to do to vet potential candidate is to visit their online social profile.
    Children of this caliber rarely filter their stream-of-conscious ramblings when posting.
    Funny thing about the Net, it never forgets.

  • At some point Scott is going to see the same reports I saw this morning we’re in Noam Chomsky has decided to endorse Hillary Clinton.

    The cognitive dissonance of this alone should be amusing. Personally, I’m having a little difficulty figuring out who is more damage to buy this the communist who’s trying to pass yourself off as a centrist, the Communist was trying to pass himself off as the smartest guy in the room as well as the most compassionate, or the communist professor up in Maine who still can’t figure out what he wants to be when he grows up

    • Well, I’d better figure up fast since I’m not far from retirement! 🙂 I would point out though, that someone who visited Eastern Europe after the fall of communism and who has seen first hand the kind of evil that system perpetuates, I am fiercely anti-Communist. But I know you know it, it’s just a thing you call anyone on the left. You really should update to another term – only old men use “communist” regularly, and it doesn’t have much zing any more.

      I don’t think Chomsky’s endorsement matters at all. He’s a great linguist, but in politics too strident and ideological. And it’s really an endorsement. He said Sanders has the best policies, but the US is a system where the Presidency is many ‘bought’ so Sanders doesn’t have a chance. Hardly a ringing pro-Hillary statement!

  • I find the SJW crowd to be amusing in that they’re largely eating their own. If they want to take out the progressive godfather, Woodrow Wilson, then let them. When they’re done with that point out that FDR appointed a KKK member to the Supreme Court.

    • And then they can move on to divesting themselves of any contributions to M’erika from the ‘right honorable’ dead kleagle and exalted cyclops Senator from West Virginia, Robert Byrd.

  • Ta-Nihisi Coates is at it again.

    It seems Clinton and Sanders aren’t willing enough to stand up to the divisiveness of white supremacy. Because, somehow, going on about white supremacy is not divisive. Or something.

  • I am not going to try to convince you on climate change – it’s clear you’ve got your minds made up. But given the importance of this issue, I urge you to at some point really look at the SCIENCE and see this NOT as a political issue, but a scientific one. When I teach my section on climate change, I always double check the latest science, and I look at what the skeptics are saying to see if there is a reason to question. I’ll often consult the scientists if I am not sure. I have no political reason to believe humans are causing climate (and other environmental) changes. So wherever the science goes, I go. I urge you to put science above politics. But that’s all I’ll say – if someone has their mind made up, it’s pointless to argue.

    • I am a scientist. I have a PhD in physics. Your point is?

    • …I urge you to at some point really look at the SCIENCE
      and see this NOT as a political issue, but a scientific

      You clearly don’t know your audience.

      You’re in the social “sciences”, not real science/mathematics like many of
      us responding to you. My knowledge of science and mathematics means I
      understand a great many of the technical criticisms of alarmist dogma. On
      the question of how much industry influences warming, I have an open mind.
      There has been an increase in CO2 and other greenhouse gases. There has
      been warming. But worldwide climate has many variables not accounted for
      in computer models. Time will tell if warming resumes at a fast pace or if
      the “pause” precedes a cooling period. Eventually, the data will settle
      the debate.

      But the politics of the matter is glaringly obvious. If all you wanted to
      do was cluck about the sky falling and encourage people to turn off their
      lights and cycle to work, on their own volition, I’d have no problem. But
      you don’t stop there. You support politicians imposing taxes, fees, fines,
      etc., or curtailing certain activities deemed verboten. You support
      politicians using our tax dollars to waste on boondoggles like ethanol,
      Solyndra, subsidies, etc.. Your reaction to what you perceive as a problem
      isn’t science. Your actions are politics. Whether you actually believe the hysteria, it’s obvious you see the opportunity for big government power grab, a la Emanuel’s “never let a crisis go to waste”. AGW is the mother of all contrived crises.

      • I’ve written elsewhere about the uncertainty and evidence so I won’t repeat that, and instead respond to a point you make that is different than the “Is there human caused global warming.” Your argument is that if there is, any response should be voluntary and not involve the government. That’s consistent with your ideological position. I would argue that voluntary actions alone won’t solve the problem, because it’s in peoples short term self-interest not to do anything, and it requires across society to make necessary changes. I appreciate and understand your distrust for the government, but I think this is a case where governmental action is necessary. I’ve always agreed big government is dangerous, I just think sometimes it is necessary. But if ideology is the reason for your position, it’s not something we can settle, neither of us are likely to adopt the others’ ideological perspective. We have to agree to disagree.

        • Big government, the only ‘business’ in the world that gets bigger by consistently failing.

        • But if ideology is the reason for your position, it’s not something we can settle, neither of us are likely to adopt the others’ ideological perspective. We have to agree to disagree.

          Except I’m not forcing you to do anything, nor supporting those who do. Since you support those who would violate my rights (property, liberty), this isn’t a case in which we agree to disagree and go our own ways. You won’t let me.

          Thus, I don’t agree to let it go at that. What you support is unethical. Claiming it is “necessary” (necessary for whom? by whose judgement?) doesn’t resolve the matter.

          You can’t quantify the costs and benefits, nor cite any experts who can do so. The predictions so far have been so far off that predictions are laughable, transparently attempts to control the outcome. You, and all the other alarmists just shout “CONSENSUS!!!’ and “SCIENCE!!!!”, which necessarily implies that anyone who dissents just STFU and not be allowed to even argue an opposing position.

          When you make peaceful, civil disagreement impossible, you force people into a position of becoming uncivil. Among the alarmist crowd, many call people who disagree with the catastrophic AGW alarmism “deniers”. A non-trivial number have even suggested “deniers” be censored, silenced, arrested, dispossessed, or even murdered. When you treat people like that, you don’t get to claim the moral high ground of science or benevolence.

          • I don’t see the world the way you do. I believe that individuals are always enmeshed in a web of social relations, linking them to each other. I believe governments can act limited by a constitution to reflect the will of the people. Exact costs and benefits can’t be known at this point, but I can point out that the EU did adhere to the Kyoto targets by 2008, and have since gone far beyond them. This has helped their technology sector. I agree that it would be wrong to sensor, silence, arrest or dispossess or murder so-called “deniers.” I keep my mind open to contrary evidence, willing to change my mind if new information comes to light. But given we have very different beliefs about the nature of freedom, governance and ethics, there’s not much more we can do than acknowledge the difference. I can’t expect you to think about the world the same way I do, and vice-versa. I’ll listen to what you say, respond if appropriate, but ultimately we just have a core disagreement about the nature of social reality.

          • I don’t see the world the way you do. I believe that individuals are always enmeshed in a web of social relations, linking them to each other.

            You claim that I don’t see individuals having a complex network of social interactions? Part of your problem is that you are stuck in binary thinking, in which the interactions between individuals must be organized, regulated, and controlled by government. I see many ways in which relationships occur without government. Open your mind, Scott.

            You discount the defining aspect of humanity: reason. Every individual not only has the capacity to make his or her own choices, but could not survive without the use of such reason. You see humans as fallible, evil, predatory, and in need of control–though you leave out the fact that you seek to grant such control to fallible, evil, predatory humans. “Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

            I believe governments can act limited by a constitution to reflect the will of the people.

            The “will of the people” doesn’t exist. That’s a fiction pushed by those seeking power by pretending to represent that will. Every individual has his or her own will, and there is never unanimous agreement. When people have competing interests, it’s reasonable to negotiate for solutions which benefit all sides. Instead, power is concentrated into the hands of elites and it shifts back and forth between two parties, such that the election winners get to bulldoze over the interests of everyone else, particularly the “little people” who aren’t among the elites or their cronies.

            What you don’t seem to understand is that I can be persuaded to change my behavior if I’m presented with an honest argument and my freedom to make my own choices is respected. I dislike inefficiency and prefer cleanliness. But come at me with arrogance, propaganda, or demands, and you immediately lose my support.

            Exact costs and benefits can¿t be known at this point, but….

            Trust them to be benevolent? No, Lucy, I’m not going to kick that ball.

            You assert that the EU has “helped their technology sector”, but you don’t quantify this, nor offer evidence that they would have been worse off otherwise. The so-called “green jobs” in Spain have been a huge boondoggle, a Potemkin village of sorts.

            I’ve been following the global warming debate for decades, including many face-to-face discussions with actual scientists and programmers. My educated opinion is that the matter is far more complex than the simplistic models assume. Many variables are set to arbitrary values, or perhaps even tweaked to get results they desire. Other variables are ignored or even unknown to researchers. Even worse, many “adjustments” appear to be fraudulent. If I had to guess, I suspect the globe will continue to warm, slowly, in the coming centuries, but that the consequences will not be nearly as bad as the predictions. But for all we know, some as-yet-unknown natural process could drive the temperature back down. We simply cannot know until it happens.

            What I am certain of is that journalists and politicians will continue to distort and misrepresent the science to fit their agendas. It’s what you people do.

          • No, I do not think individual interactions must be organized by government, Elliot. Who would think that? Government has a role, but not one so intrusive. Most relationships indeed do NOT involve government. We agree on that! As for humans, I see humans as basically good and able to interact with each other without need of government or protection. But not completely. Some humans are evil (a look at history proves that) and some good people are prone to evil when fear, anger and hate permeates their psyches. Humans exist as a range, it’s not a bianary “good or evil” choice.

            As to reason: reason is a tool. Michio Kaku in “The Future of Physics” describes a limit of AI. Without emotions, it’s impossible to make choices, even to set an appointment time for the next week. Emotion gives us our values, the ability to decide. Reason is only a tool that gets used given the values and ideals sentiment provides. That means the “Data” characters that show no emotion are unrealistic. So yes, reason is important, but it doesn’t give us our values.

          • As for government, recognizing that we’re all impacted and connected by decisions made, looking at real history not abstract theory, I believe a kind of Republican Democracy is best – limited by a constitution with all accountable to the public and rule of law. Nothing in history tells me some kind of libertarian system is feasible – the closest was probably “libertarian Britain” which had horrific sweat shops with children working at age 6, and a life expectancy for factory work at 19. It took parliament to force changes. So I’ll stick with what works, not what one can imagine to be better. That path tends to fail. After all, government is made up of humans. Governments thus reflect human nature.

          • So you want to give more power to people who generally seek to be ‘in charge’ as part of their nature.

            Yeah, that could never go wrong.

          • Actually if I were to have my way I’d break the US up into a number of small countries. I think abuse of power is greater when a country is as large. That’s unrealistic, so as a fallback I would support giving a lot more power to the states. That is something I debate with my liberal friends sometimes (some of them say I’m too libertarian – compared to them, perhaps, compared to you guys, no). I don’t like concentrations of power – be it in the private sector or governmental. I think we need government because without it private sector power would be concentrated and abused, with no accountability. Of course, on Wall Street we see the mix of government and private sector concentration of power via partnership.

          • Pull the other one, it has bells on.

    • “I always double check the latest science”

      Well then, maybe YOU could provide US with a link or two to some reel sienz (like The Guardian), instead of the ideological drivel we rely on.

      • I’m sure you know how to get the information. NASA has some good material, so does the National Resources Defense Council. Skeptical Science directly takes on the arguments of the climate change skeptics. You know how to get the information. As I said, I keep my eyes open for new information from the skeptics just in case it warrants reconsidering my position. Ideology should not impact how one views the science. It does impact what one thinks should be done given the science.

        • Wow. The Guardian, the National Resources Defense Council, Skeptical Science. No ideology or bias there. Just pure science.

          Have you ever gone a whole day without accusing those who disagree with you of ideological bias?

          “The lady doth protest too much, methinks”.

          • With sources like that I understand why you do not want to supply and links.

          • I notice you left out NASA. I don’t have to provide links, you can find those sources easily. They aren’t partisan. Compare that to the sources the “skeptics” use, and well, there’s a reason why the “denier” perspective does not get much respect. Posture and ridicule all you want, it doesn’t make your argument stronger.

          • NASA? They still provide scientific data?

            I thought their primary focus was Muslim Outreach. It was back in 2010.

            #3 – “perhaps foremost Obama wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world….help them feel good about their contribution to science and math and engineering”.

          • As you say, NASA as your reference, doesn’t make your argument stronger.

          • Well compared with the sources you provide…oh wait, you didn’t provide any… 😉

  • The SJW go after MLK.

    When the student union considered the question, some students asked, “Does the MLK quote represent us today?” The problem wasn’t so much the message, but the fact that it only focused on racial diversity instead of gender identity.

    • Hilarity – imagine, he just wasn’t inclusive enough when he didn’t list all the little groups that the future would break us up into.
      Imagine wanting children, whatever they were (where color was an obvious and significant discriminating factor…) to be treated on the content of their character rather than some physical aspect (like, color, or…behavior….)

      Are we to think character content is only a facet of people based on color then?

      Or could it be that the term ‘man’, rather than meaning someone with a penis, means EVERYONE. Could it mean he meant he wanted people to be judged based on who they were rather than who they wanted to boink or be boinked by?
      Egad, no, that will never work, better we should have to itemize each little group to make sure no one has their feelings hurt sometime in the future.

      Makes you wonder why we bother doesn’t it.